16. For thou wilt not accept a sacrifice; though I should give
271271 The original word ואחנה, ve-etenah, which Calvin renders, Though I should give, is considered by some as a noun. “The
common interpretation, Else would I give it thee,” says Rogers, “is harsh. Gesenius attributes to the word אחנה, with a slight difference in the punctuation, the sense of a gift, reward It is used only in Hosea 2:14. If this sense might be given to the word in this passage, the verse might be translated, ‘For thou desirest no sacrifice or gift,
[In] a burnt-offering thou hast no delight.’”Book of Psalms in Hebrew, volume 2, p. 208.
a burnt offering, it would not please thee. 17. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God! thou wilt not despise. 18. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion; build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 19. Thou shalt then accept the sacrifices of righteousness, even the burnt-offering
and whole oblation; then shall calves come upon thine altar.

16. For thou wilt not accept a sacrifice By this language he expresses his confidence of obtaining pardon, although he brought nothing to God in the shape of compensation,
but relied entirely upon the riches of Divine mercy. He confesses that he comes to God both poor and needy; but is
persuaded that this will not prevent the success of his suit, because God attaches no importance to sacrifices. In this
he indirectly reproves the Jews for an error which prevailed amongst them in all ages. In proclaiming that the sacrifices
made expiation for sin, the Law had designed to withdraw them from all trust in their own works to the one satisfaction of
Christ; but they presumed to bring their sacrifices to the altar as a price by which they hoped to procure their own redemption.
In
opposition to this proud and preposterous notion, David declares that God had no delight in sacrifices,
272272 There may be another reason why David here affirms that God would not accept of a sacrifice, nor be pleased with a burnt-offering.
No particular sacrifices were appointed by the Law of Moses to expiate the guilt of murder and adultery. The person who had
perpetrated these crimes was, according to the Divine law, to be punished with death. David therefore may be understood as
declaring, that it was utterly vain for him to think of resorting to
sacrifices and burnt-offerings with a view to the expiation of his guilt; that his criminality was of such a character,
that the ceremonial law made no provision for his deliverance from the doom which his deeds of horror deserved; and that the
only sacrifices which would avail were those mentioned in the succeeding verse, “The sacrifices of a broken heart.”
and that he had nothing to present which could purchase his favor. God had enjoined the observance of sacrifice, and
David was far from neglecting it. He is not to be understood as asserting that the rite might warrantably be omitted, or that
God would absolutely reject the sacrifices of his own institution, which, along with the other ceremonies of the Law, proved
important helps, as we have already observed, both to David and the whole
Church of God. He speaks of them as observed by the proud and the ignorant, under an impression of meriting the divine
favor. Diligent as he was, therefore, in the practice of sacrifice, resting his whole dependence upon the satisfaction of
Christ, who atoned for the sins of the world, he could yet honestly declare that he brought nothing to God in the shape of
compensation, and that he trusted entirely to a gratuitous reconciliation. The Jews, when they presented their sacrifices,
could not be
said to bring anything of their own to the Lord, but must rather be viewed as borrowing from Christ the necessary purchase-money
of redemption. They were passive, not active, in this divine service.

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. He had shown that sacrifices have no such efficacy in procuring the Divine favor as the Jews imagined; and now he declares
that he needed to bring nothing whatever to God but a contrite and humbled heart. Nothing
more is necessary, on the part of the sinner, than to prostrate himself in supplication for Divine mercy. The plural number
is used in the verse to express more forcibly the truth, that the sacrifice of repentance is enough in itself without any
other. Had he said no more than that this kind of sacrifice was peculiarly acceptable to God, the Jews might easily have evaded
his argument by alleging that this might be true, and yet other sacrifices be equally agreeable in his sight; just as the
Papists in our own day mix up the grace of God with their own works, rather than submit to receive a gratuitous pardon
for their sins. In order to exclude every idea of a pretended satisfaction, David represents contrition of heart as comprehending
in itself the whole sum of acceptable sacrifices. And in using the term sacrifices of God, he conveys a tacit reproof to the proud
hypocrite, who sets a high value upon such sacrifices as are of his own unauthorised fancy, when he imagines that by means
of them he can propitiate God. But here a difficulty may be started. “If the contrite heart,” it may be said, “hold a higher
place in the estimation of God than all sacrifices, does it not follow that we acquire pardon by our penitence, and that thus
it ceases to be gratuitous?” In reply to this, I might observe, that David is not speaking at this time of the meritorious
condition by which pardon is procured, but, on the contrary, asserting our absolute destitution of merit by enjoining
humiliation and contrition of spirit, in opposition to everything like an attempt to render a compensation to God. The man
of broken spirit is one who has been emptied of all vain-glorious confidence, and brought to acknowledge that he is nothing.
The contrite heart abjures the idea of merit, and has no dealings with God upon the principle of exchange. Is it objected,
that faith
is a more excellent sacrifice that that which is here commended by the Psalmist, and of greater efficacy in procuring
the Divine favor, as it presents to the view of God that Savior who is the true and only propitiation? I would observe, that
faith cannot be separated from the humility of which David speaks. This is such a humility as is altogether unknown to the
wicked. They may tremble in the presence of God, and the obstinacy and rebellion of their hearts may be partially restrained,
but
they still retain some remainders of inward pride. Where the spirit has been broken, on the other hand, and the heart
has become contrite, through a felt sense of the anger of the Lord, a man is brought to genuine fear and self-loathing, with
a deep conviction that of himself he can do or deserve nothing, and must be indebted unconditionally for salvation to Divine
mercy. That this should be represented by David as constituting all which God desires in the shape of sacrifice, need not
excite
our surprise. He does not exclude faith, he does not condescend upon any nice division of true penitence into its several
parts, but asserts in general, that the only way of obtaining the favor of God is by prostrating ourselves with a wounded
heart at the feet of his Divine mercy, and supplicating his grace with ingenuous confessions of our own helplessness.

18 Do good to Zion in thy good pleasure: build thou the walls of Jerusalem273273 We have already considered Horsley’s first objection, founded on the fourth verse, to the authenticity of the title of this
psalm. His second and only other objection rests on the 18th verse. He thinks that the prayer, “Build thou the walls of Jerusalem,”
is more applicable to the time of the Babylonish captivity than to the time of David; and to the former period he refers the
psalm. Calmet and Mudge are of the same opinion. Some learned Jewish
interpreters, while they assign the psalm to the occasion mentioned in the title, conjecture that the 18th and 19th
verses were added by some Jewish bard in the time of the Babylonish captivity. This opinion is also held by Venema, Green,
Street, French and Skinner. There does not, however, seem to be any sufficient ground for referring the poem, either in whole
or in part, to that period. Neither the walls of Jerusalem, nor the buildings of Zion, as the royal palace, and the magnificent
structure of the temple, which we know David had already contemplated for the worship of God, (2 Samuel 7:1, etc.) were completed during his reign. This was only effected under the reign of his son Solomon, (1 Kings 3:1.) The prayer, then, in the 18th verse, might have a particular reference to the completion of these buildings,
and especially to the rearing of the temple, in which sacrifices of unprecedented magnitude were to be offered. David’s
fears might easily suggest to him that his crimes might prevent the building of the temple which God had promised should be
erected, (2 Samuel 7:13.) “The king forgets not,” observes Bishop Horne, “to ask mercy for his people, as well as for himself; that so neither his
own nor their sins
might prevent either the building and flourishing of the earthly Jerusalem, or, what was of infinitely greater importance,
the promised blessing of Messiah, who was to descend from him, and to rear the walls of the New Jerusalem.”
From prayer in his own behalf he now proceeds to offer up supplications for the collective Church of God, a duty which
he may have felt to be the more incumbent upon him from the circumstance of his having done what he could by his fall to ruin
it, Raised to the throne, and originally anointed to be king for the very purpose of fostering the Church of God, he had by
his disgraceful conduct nearly accomplished its destruction. Although
chargeable with this guilt, he now prays that God would restore it in the exercise of his free mercy. He makes no mention
of the righteousness of others, but rests his plea entirely upon the good pleasure of God, intimating that the Church, when
at any period it has been brought low, must be indebted for its restoration solely to Divine grace. Jerusalem was already
built, but David prays that God would build it still farther for he knew that it fell far short of being complete, so long
as it
wanted the temple, where he had promised to establish the Ark of his Covenant, and also the royal palace. We learn from
the passage, that it is God’s own work to build the Church. “His foundation,” says the Psalmist elsewhere, “is in the holy
mountains,” (Psalm 87:1.) We are not to imagine that David refers simply to the Church as a
material structure, but must consider him as having his eye fixed upon the spiritual temple, which cannot be raised by
human skill or industry. It is true, indeed, that men will not make progress even in the building of material walls, unless
their labor be blessed from above; but the Church is in a peculiar sense the erection of God, who has founded it upon the
earth in the exercise of his mighty power, and who will exalt it higher than the heavens. In this prayer David does not contemplate
the welfare of the Church for a short period merely, but prays that God would preserve and advance it till the coming
of Christ. And here, may it not justly excite our surprise, to find one who, in the preceding part of the psalm, had employed
the language of distress and almost of despair, now inspired with the confidence necessary for commending the whole Church
to the care of God? How comes it about, may we not ask, that one who so narrowly escaped destruction himself, should now appear
as a
guide to conduct others to salvation? In this we have a striking proof, that, provided we obtain reconciliation with God,
we may not only expect to be inspired with confidence in praying for our own salvation, but may hope to be admitted as intercessors
in behalf of others, and even to be advanced to the higher honor still, of commending into the hands of God the glory of the
Redeemer’s kingdom.

19 Then shalt thou accept sacrifices of righteousness In these words there is an apparent, but only an apparent, inconsistency with others which he had used in the preceding context.
He had declared sacrifices to be of no value when considered in themselves, but now he acknowledges
them to be acceptable to God when viewed as expressions or symbols of faith, penitence, and thanksgiving. He calls them
distinctly sacrifices of righteousness, right, warrantable, and such as are offered in strict accordance with the commandment of God. The expression is the same employed
in Psalm
4:5, where David uses it with a tacit condemnation of those who gloried in the mere outward form of ceremonies. We find him again
exciting himself and others by his example to the exercise of gratitude, and to the expression of it openly in the solemn
assembly. Besides sacrifices in general, two particular kinds of sacrifice are specified. Although some consider כליל, calil, and עולה, olah, to be both of one signification, others maintain with more correctness, that the first is to be understood as meaning the
priest’s sacrifice, because in it the offering was consumed or burnt with fire.
274274 Ainsworth reads, “the burnt-offering and the whole oblation;” and observes, that “The whole oblation, the calil, was a kind of oblation that was wholly and every whit given up in fire unto God, and differed from the ghnola, or burnt-offering, which was only of beasts or birds, Leviticus 1; whereas the calil was also
of flour, called the meat-offering, but burned altogether, which the common meat-offerings were not, Leviticus 6:20, 22, 23. It was also of beasts, 1 Samuel 7:9.”
In the enumeration which he makes, David designs to teach us that none of all the legal rites can find acceptance with
God, unless they be used with a reference to the proper end of their institution. The whole of this verse has been figuratively
applied by some to the kingdom of Christ, but the interpretation is unnatural and too refined. Thanksgivings are indeed called
by Hosea “the calves of the lips,” (Hosea 14:2;) but it seems evident that in the passage before us there are conjoined along with the frame or disposition of the heart
those solemn ceremonies which constituted part of the ancient worship.

271 The original word ואחנה, ve-etenah, which Calvin renders, Though I should give, is considered by some as a noun. “The
common interpretation, Else would I give it thee,” says Rogers, “is harsh. Gesenius attributes to the word אחנה, with a slight difference in the punctuation, the sense of a gift, reward It is used only in Hosea 2:14. If this sense might be given to the word in this passage, the verse might be translated, ‘For thou desirest no sacrifice or gift,
[In] a burnt-offering thou hast no delight.’”Book of Psalms in Hebrew, volume 2, p. 208.

272 There may be another reason why David here affirms that God would not accept of a sacrifice, nor be pleased with a burnt-offering.
No particular sacrifices were appointed by the Law of Moses to expiate the guilt of murder and adultery. The person who had
perpetrated these crimes was, according to the Divine law, to be punished with death. David therefore may be understood as
declaring, that it was utterly vain for him to think of resorting to
sacrifices and burnt-offerings with a view to the expiation of his guilt; that his criminality was of such a character,
that the ceremonial law made no provision for his deliverance from the doom which his deeds of horror deserved; and that the
only sacrifices which would avail were those mentioned in the succeeding verse, “The sacrifices of a broken heart.”

273 We have already considered Horsley’s first objection, founded on the fourth verse, to the authenticity of the title of this
psalm. His second and only other objection rests on the 18th verse. He thinks that the prayer, “Build thou the walls of Jerusalem,”
is more applicable to the time of the Babylonish captivity than to the time of David; and to the former period he refers the
psalm. Calmet and Mudge are of the same opinion. Some learned Jewish
interpreters, while they assign the psalm to the occasion mentioned in the title, conjecture that the 18th and 19th
verses were added by some Jewish bard in the time of the Babylonish captivity. This opinion is also held by Venema, Green,
Street, French and Skinner. There does not, however, seem to be any sufficient ground for referring the poem, either in whole
or in part, to that period. Neither the walls of Jerusalem, nor the buildings of Zion, as the royal palace, and the magnificent
structure of the temple, which we know David had already contemplated for the worship of God, (2 Samuel 7:1, etc.) were completed during his reign. This was only effected under the reign of his son Solomon, (1 Kings 3:1.) The prayer, then, in the 18th verse, might have a particular reference to the completion of these buildings,
and especially to the rearing of the temple, in which sacrifices of unprecedented magnitude were to be offered. David’s
fears might easily suggest to him that his crimes might prevent the building of the temple which God had promised should be
erected, (2 Samuel 7:13.) “The king forgets not,” observes Bishop Horne, “to ask mercy for his people, as well as for himself; that so neither his
own nor their sins
might prevent either the building and flourishing of the earthly Jerusalem, or, what was of infinitely greater importance,
the promised blessing of Messiah, who was to descend from him, and to rear the walls of the New Jerusalem.”

274 Ainsworth reads, “the burnt-offering and the whole oblation;” and observes, that “The whole oblation, the calil, was a kind of oblation that was wholly and every whit given up in fire unto God, and differed from the ghnola, or burnt-offering, which was only of beasts or birds, Leviticus 1; whereas the calil was also
of flour, called the meat-offering, but burned altogether, which the common meat-offerings were not, Leviticus 6:20, 22, 23. It was also of beasts, 1 Samuel 7:9.”